Politics, Spotlight, US Election

The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish

[Editor’s Note: This article was rejected by 45 different magazines, periodicals, and journals across the political spectrum: Far left, left, center, unaffiliated, right, far right, and libertarian.]

Trump is a monstrous choice for president. Monstrous. He’s a demagogue with a clear bent to authoritarianism. He’s completely politically inexperienced and has no clear idea what constitutes successful, appropriate, or even legal behavior for an elected official. He has repeatedly proven himself to be virtually incoherent on foreign policy, economics, diplomacy, and the military. His only true assets are self-promotion, juvenile tweets, and belittling his enemies. He’s barely qualified to be president of anything, especially anything with a military. It goes without saying, then, that essentially no one in their right mind should want him as President of the United States of America. The problem, however, is that America is no longer in its right mind. Major political cancers are driving it to madness.

But what would happen should Trump get elected? On the Right, President Trump would force the GOP to completely reorganize—and fast. It would compel them to abandon their devastating pitch to the extreme right. The Republican Party would have to get back on the rails, and do so quickly, to reclaim a stable position in American politics. On the Left, the existence of the greatest impossible dread imaginable, of President Trump, would rouse sleepy mainline liberals from their dogmatic slumber. It would force them to turn sharply away from the excesses of its screeching, reality-denying, uncompromising and authoritarian fringe that provided much of Trump’s thrust in the first place. And underlying it all rests the question of influence and utility of big money in American politics. That is, after all, largely how we got here in the first place, with astroturfed populism combined with huge corporate campaign donations for political tools and extremists short-sightedly planting most of the seeds for these newer, louder issues.

Of these cancers, perhaps the most significant is today’s mainline Republican Party, which is best described as being hyper-right and utterly recalcitrant (firmer critics describe it as obstructionist and seditious). Given the GOP’s grotesquely partisan behavior during the entire tenure of Obama’s two terms in office, it hardly needs detailing that the Republican flight from Eisenhower conservatism to the borderline insane far-far-Right bunker it has backed itself into is one of the greatest domestic political challenges that America currently faces.

Trump’s shocking and meteoric rise in the Republican primaries has already put the GOP house in shambles, however, and the metaphor is almost too sweet to pass up. Over the past two decades, and especially the last eight years, the Republican Party has allowed ideological corruption to rot its once stable, corporate structure from within, and meanwhile a constant gale of far-Right pressure has shoved upon the party from at least two sides, the religious Right and the anti-government Tea Party and its sympathizers. Even an institution as old and robust as the Party of Lincoln is not sustainable against these forces, and so the house of GOP condemned itself. Then, in walks a take-no-prisoners real-estate mogul, declares the entire enterprise a loss, and becomes the very wrecking ball that smashes it to pieces.

A second cancer is the far-Right’s mirror image: the shrieking, victimhood-obsessed culture on the far Left. Trump’s rise isn’t just explained by the failure of the GOP to get its house in order, conduct responsible politics, or find a single qualified candidate to run for the office. Trump’s rise follows directly from backlash to two words: political correctness. These two words are two of Trump’s favorites, and not arbitrarily. It is almost impossible to find a Trump supporter who doesn’t back him explicitly because of his unflinching, dismissive, even hostile stance against political correctness. “Don’t be afraid to speak your mind. Vote Trump!” could be a campaign bumper sticker. Should that not be convincing enough, cinching the case was the recent race-to-the-bottom sparring match between Trump and former GOP hopeful Ted Cruz, over which of them is to be deplored for being “more PC” than the other.

The Politically Correct Left is a cancer, too. It diagnoses societal symptoms far too simplistically and, largely just by calling them bigots, smears anyone who questions their moral pronouncements. Their assessment possesses no more nuance than accusing those on the Right of holding policy positions because they’re bigots: racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, and anything else -phobic or -ist that their imaginations allow. This impolitic attitude and the concomitant name-calling prevent honest discourse about pressing issues, such as immigration policy, health care, and the global concerns orbiting around Islamist terrorism. The Politically Correct Left cannot even hear the need for such conversations, though, over the sound of its bellowing accusations of bigotry. Trump bulldozes their objections and couldn’t care less. Certainly, his policy proposals on these issues are both practically and morally repellent, but democracy demands the national-level conversation he’s forcing.

It must be noted that on almost no topic is the love of Trump’s anti-PC stand more obvious than that of radical Islam’s role in current global affairs. It doesn’t seem to matter in the slightest how clumsily he handles the topic. His supporters still lap it up. Why? The fact that our current political elites—be it for good reasons or bad—are obviously not speaking honestly about the connections between Islam and Islamism is a highly malignant lobe of the PC cancer. Trump’s recommended medicine seems hardly more sophisticated than taking a relatively dull hatchet to the afflicted, but at least he’s calling for an operation.

These are the most egregious cancers eating the American body politic from the inside. Yet there are more. To name just one, campaign finance reform is the closest thing to a topical issue that Trump’s campaigning efforts represents. The billionaire runs not just on a platform of making fun of the dilapidated GOP and PC children but, nominally, on being self-funded. Trump sells himself successfully to his disenfranchised, patriotic base as the very image of campaign finance reform, something they seem not to understand but hate all the more for it. And make no mistake, campaign finance reform is a serious issue that needs serious attention. It is, after all, the same issue that propelled Bernie Sanders to be the darling of the progressive Left. In showing that they are viable, even against big money, Trump and Sanders also prove just how desperately Americans need—and democracy demands—campaign finance reform.

Now — and not even needing the “as liberals” qualifier — we do not want to vote for Trump. However, we have to admit that even the notion of a President Donald J. Trump makes an utter mockery of the foundations upon which these political troubles stand, and so he may actually represent an unpalatable but real chance at destroying these two political cancers of our time and thus remedying our insanity-inflicted democracy.

Trained up on the canvas-covered platforms of professional wrestling rings, Trump does almost nothing better than make a mockery of things, and in this case of the very habits and institutions that have proved most poisonous to American politics this century. He also, like any effective demagogue, commands tremendous public influence, thereby stoking and wielding considerable public opinion against his enemies. Perverse as it sounds, the Trump brand of political mockery might be just what this nation needs most right now.

These problems truly are cancers to our democracy, and a President Trump might be potent, if rough, medicine. There’s little question that his incompetence, inexperience, impetuousness, and incivility would cripple both the effectiveness and reputation of American politics for as long as he held office; and the embarrassment to the American citizens, if it were to elect him, would be almost unbearable. Our relationships with many, if not most, other countries would deteriorate, our economy would struggle (if it didn’t crash outright), and many of our problems would either multiply or fester. Such pains, though, may be the metaphorical equivalent of what chemotherapy does to its unfortunate patients. The question to our minds, then, isn’t whether a Trump presidency would be bad for America—it unquestionably would—but whether America might survive the medicine and come out better for the noxious treatment.

We think it may. The United States is a carefully constructed democratic republic with divided powers, and a terrible president, while coming at a serious cost, will prove limited in the scope of his capabilities. Congress is very unlikely to back much of what Trump proposes, for instance, and they just spent eight years demonstrating that if only half of our elected legislators have such a mind, they can grind American politics largely to a halt. Even if he is able to unduly pressure Congress, Trump would still have the Supreme Court to reckon with, and it would rarely go in his favor even were he able to stack the deck slightly to his favor by placing a few justices. Some in the US Military have already indicated that it is unlikely to follow his orders as Commander in Chief, if they are unconscionable or outright war crimes (a concept that Trump, in all his bluster, clearly doesn’t understand). In all likelihood, the force of the laws and traditions of the United States will be strong enough to render Trump largely impotent as president.

Is it a risky bet? Absolutely. A Trump presidency cannot be seen in a more flattering light than an attempt to drink a little chemo, get sick, and kill a handful of political cancers at once. Is it flirtation with fire? Yes. The whole gambit rests upon the horror of a Trump presidency creating a political backlash that repairs our most damaged institutions. Are we going to vote for Trump? No. No one should. What we’ve written constitutes the only reasonable case for supporting Trump, and it’s weak. That there’s even such an argument to be made, though, tells us a great deal about what’s going wrong in our society.

 

James A. Lindsay holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and is the author of three books, including Everybody Is Wrong About God. Follow him on Twitter: @GodDoesnt.

 

Peter Boghossian is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University and an affiliated faculty member at Oregon Health Science University in the Division of General Internal Medicine. He is the author of A Manual for Creating Atheists. Follow him on Twitter: @peterboghossian.

 

Filed under: Politics, Spotlight, US Election

by

James A. Lindsay holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and is the author of three books, including Everybody Is Wrong About God. Follow him on Twitter: @GodDoesnt. Peter Boghossian is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University and an affiliated faculty member at Oregon Health Science University in the Division of General Internal Medicine. He is the author of A Manual for Creating Atheists. Follow him on Twitter: @peterboghossian.

116 Comments

  1. LFP2016 says

    Clearly and simply written — and 100% correct. The critique of the Right’s “cancers” is like shooting proverbial fish in a barrel, so I’m glad the authors called out the Regressive Left as one of the causes of Trump’s rise. Kudos!

  2. expeedee says

    Polarization is the inevitable result of diversity and identity politics. Evolution favors those who choose the team that best supports their fitness and thus their survival. When Mexican flags are waved at Trump rallies and American flags are burned, one must choose the side which best ensures their survival and the survival of their children. And you’d be surprised about who teams up together.

  3. With this tawdry bit of vilification, Quillette has lowered it’s standards again and too far to be ignored. Life is too short to waste on garbage. Political opinion does not require character assassination, nor is Quillette innocent for publishing such a piece of defamation, even if it is legal because Mr. Trump is a public figure. Enough is enough.

  4. Carl B. says

    “The United States is a carefully constructed democratic republic with divided powers”

    Well, the people who carefully constructed this republic would be astonished if they just had the opportunity to rise from their graves and look at modern America.

    This is not a nation anymore. John Stuart Mill warned about this long time ago (‘Considerations on Representative Government’, Chapter XVI. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5669/5669-h/5669-h.htm).

    The future of politics is about identity, whether you like it or not.

    Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a little bumpy.

    (BTW, there’s actually a lesser risk of war with President Trump. He’s not a neocon, as you may have noticed.)

  5. Anti- and pro- Trump articles coming from every possible perspective are everywhere in the media. Nothing in the substance of this article is that shocking or out there. Maybe it was rejected by 45 publications because it’s an angry, hysterical screed?

    Everything is a “cancer,” “terrible,” “shrieking,” “monstrous,” etc. Save your strongest adjectives for certain points or they become meaningless.

    Good articles take you on a journey. This is the equivalent of using a couple thousand words to beat someone over the head with a sledgehammer.

    • Yep. A sledgehammer of histrionic rhetoric and an appallingly bad analogy (the chemotherapy analogy). The more I read of this article, the more I cringed—in embarrassment for the authors.

    • Well said. The authors of this article are well-known for marketing themselves & their intellectually bankrupt (i.e. unpublished) screeds. They are morons, and rarely, if ever, know what they’re talking about.

  6. Pingback: Is the U.S. about to administer Chemotherapy to it’s body politic? | Tallbloke's Talkshop

  7. “What we’ve written constitutes the only reasonable case for supporting Trump, and it’s weak. That there’s even such an argument to be made, though, tells us a great deal about what’s going wrong in our society.”

    Well said.

  8. although trump is not perfect we know hillary is a loose minded person with know ethical values who let innocent people die without even trying to help (KEY WORD TRYING) we dont know if we could have saved them but as americans we should have tried her ethics are terrible she lies everytime she opens her mouth death follows both the clintons threw out there political career sanders is a socialist and we can look around the world and see how thats working out i will vote for trump because we know what the other two have and will do we owe america at least a chance for recovery is trump the man i dont know but i do know it aint hillary or the bern

    • Niels says

      Agreed Matthew, I honestly don’t believe this country will survive the tenure of a hillary or the bern, we will be fiscally and morally bankrupt!

      • Of course it will. Neither Hillary nor Bernie can bankrupt the USA. Trump can’t destroy the USA. The Founding Fathers (and subsequent generations) set up the framework for your government brilliantly – no one branch of government can, by itself, fuck over the nation. None of these candidates will have a receptive Legislative Branch to deal with and the SCOTUS only gets involved when things are brought to them. Stop being an hysterical twit – you (as in the Royal You, ie: the USA) are going to be fine.

        So let the people who COULD be destroyed by America use the histrionics and hyperbole. The USA has protections against their own Tyrants; the rest of the world does not.

    • Riccardo Giannattasio says

      “sanders is a socialist and we can look around the world and see how thats working out”

      What do you mean by this? As far as I know the only pure socialist state in history is the USSR, which was dissolved in 1991.

      The only other place I can think of that is socialist would be Sweden, which is a way better place to live than the US.

      • grafactor says

        Umm, so…. Sweden and the USSR? That’s all you can come up with? One was a dictatorship, the other is a parliamentary democracy.

    • grafactor says

      Your spelling and grammar tell us all we need to know about the kind of person that supports Trump.

    • “with know ethical values” … congratulations – you take the 2016 award for most astounding misuse of a homonym … try the word “no” instead!! (You might also like to try some punctuation!!)

  9. Joe says

    You know what the funniest thing is? I think there’s a lot of people, even casual observers who aren’t super into politics or rationality or etc., who would broadly agree with this analysis. That Trump is a backlash to overbearing PC – which really went into overdrive in 2013 after Obama’s reelection (I say this as a guy who voted for him twice) – is insanely obvious. That the Republican Party is being devoured by its own parts after years of indulging their worst instincts is insanely obvious. That Trump is a dangerous moron who can’t actually speak to the legitimate grievances he’s able to demagogue is, I guess, less obvious than it should be given his poll numbers – but is still pretty obvious.

    But point #1 is going to be persona non-grata for the Guardians and mainstream liberal sites (you bigot!!1), point #2 is a reality that the NROs and mainstream conservative sites of the world don’t want to deal with, and point #3 is poison to Trump’s cult. No wonder this couldn’t get published anywhere.

  10. Peter says

    Sorry, I couldn’t get past the opening paragraph:

    “He’s completely politically inexperienced and has no clear idea what constitutes successful, appropriate, or even legal behavior for an elected official. He has repeatedly proven himself to be virtually incoherent on foreign policy, economics, diplomacy, and the military.”

    We’ve seen what “political experience” has resulted in, what “successful,” “appropriate” and so-called “‘legal’ behavior” leads to, and the fruits of “coherent foreign policy, economics, diplomacy, and the military”: death, destruction, misery, suffering, rights-violations, and lowered living standards for millions.

    • A Person says

      You… uh… should probably read the rest of the article instead of dismissing it at the first sentence. The author agrees with what you’re saying. Seriously, try the first paragraph at least.

  11. Also, the amount of damage Trump can do to America is almost nil compared to the damage he can do to the rest of the world. Particularly NATO – all he has to do is to demand that all NATO allies meet the military spending obligations they agreed to as a part of being accepted into NATO. In all fairness this is NOT an unreasonable demand – he wouldn’t have to demand something above and beyond what NATO agreed to, only that NATO lives up to the obligations each member agreed to.

    That, alone, would cause far more damage for the rest of NATO than anything he could do to the USA. The USA has checks and balances against a “tyrant” in the White House. The rest of the world has no checks and balances against the strongest nation in the world throwing its weight around.

    • chris says

      How is demanding that Europe stops freeriding on the US military ‘damage’? I think it’d be a really necessary reality check for us. The overreach, or reach-over, of European govts, spending on discretionary social programmes rather than essentials like defence, could do with a check.
      Whether Russia snaffles up a few Baltic nations while Europe re-equips is anoth er matter..

    • Michael Price says

      Ok so “worst” case scenario, he demands this and makes it stick (personally I think there’s no chance this happens but anyway). There are two choices, increase military spending or NATO is destroyed. If you choose the former Trump isn’t hurting your country, your government is. What’s the downside of the latter? Almost none of the NATO countries face existential threats, and those that do face them because they’ve imported Islamic nutcases and refuse to throw the really bad ones in jail. Ukraine might become part of Russia instead of what it currently appears to want, which is to be part of Nazi Germany.

  12. I can see why so many outlets declined to publish this op-ed. The reasoning is poor, and the false equivalency is epic, particularly the part about PC having been as responsible for the rise of Trump as the Republican Party’s failings. As a surgical oncologist, I found the analogy of a Trump Presidency to chemotherapy that will kill the “political cancers” of PC and far right wing craziness to be silly in the extreme. Let’s put it this way. Even if the analogy between cancer and PC and/or far right wing obstructionism were a valid one, you don’t treat cancer by injecting more cancer, which is exactly what Trump would do, at least, for the far right wing craziness. This article is beyond ridiculous.

    • Joe K says

      I think this analogy works. Chemotherapy is a poison that does horrible things to your body. That’s why it’s not uncommon for people to let the cancer kill them rather than suffer through chemo, and why it’s typically used as a last resort when there aren’t any other options.
      A trump presidency would be an injection of poison that would definitely cause our country harm. But there is a possibility that he could shake up our political structure that will take out these cancers, or at least shrink them to a point where they are benign. However, like chemo, there is also the possibility that he could fail to take out these cancers, and the poison we have inject will just wind up making the situation worse.

  13. Andy Morensen says

    “the Republican flight from Eisenhower conservatism to the borderline insane far-far-Right bunker”

    What the hell are you talking about? Since the 50’s, the Overton Window has shifted to the Left, not to the Right. That’s ludicrous.

    • Senex says

      Yes, the Overton Window shifted towards all that is Good and Right, and thus, positions once considered mildly conservative are now borderline insane far-far-Right.

    • grafactor says

      What a load of delusional codswallop. The whole world has moved (economically at least) to the Right since the 1980’s. Look at when Nixon was in power. He wanted Medicaid available to all based on income, and a private insurance mandate. He created the EPA, which a lot of today’s Republicans want to get rid of. He endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment and affirmative action.

      There were price controls for Pete’s sake. Obama is way to the right of Nixon, and yet some people call him a socialist. It’s ridiculous.

      • Yes, you’re both right. It’s moved to the right economically and to left culturally.

        This is a libertarian age.

      • Both correct. It’s moved right on economics and left on culture. It’s a libertarian age we’re in.

  14. The description of a demagogue can’t be treated as a prescription for the cure. Both the extreme left and right have contributed to the Trump phenomenon. The Republican Party leadership has allowed its party to be overtaken by a vocal minority. Neither President Clinton or President have aligned with the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party. Mr. Trump is a disaster for us all and there is no redeeming value in that. Why people of any persuasion support him is the issue. We as a nation need to address that to eliminate any possibility for Mr. Trump or any others like him can ever get this close to the Presidency again.

    • RS says

      Yea, I agree. I was on the fence at first, but I don’t like that the article was framed that way. I mean, the fact no one wanted to publish it is a bit interesting, but I think that that framing reads as “look how edgy we are” or, as you said, as “persecutionist hype.” The article itself is interesting.

  15. Great article. Trump would be a catastrophe for the US and the EU and the wider planet. The US needs visionary leadership to solve vital problems.

  16. I really wonder about the notion that PC is an actual driver of Trump’s popularity. I suspect that Trump’s popularity has much more to do with the economic insecurity of his supporters. The relentless changing of the US labor market due to offshoring and automation makes for a lot of unease. “Save us from the ravages of capitalism, Mr. Capitalist!” is their ironic plea.

    • RS says

      Instead of this, why not write 9 words or more that are relevant to the content of the article?

      • Sarxis says

        His comment was on par with the tenor and content of the article.

    • Jones says

      Please do. This article was a phenomenal read. If you can do even better I’m dying to read it!

  17. Bitfu says

    The title of this post should read: What happens when you cross a Mathematician with a Philosopher?

    Whew…that is one bad combo. Seriously, I never thought I’d write what I’m about to write but you two have managed to surpass activist/poet on my list of worst combos. It really is that bad. I’m thinking there should be some kind of anti-procreation law…

    The following are not permitted to have children:
    1. Brother/Sister
    2. First Cousins
    3. Mathematician/Philosopher

    Actually, this would be a great premise for a Children of the Corn-style Horror Flick. The setting is some remote college. It’s led by a twisted mathematician/philosopher couple. They have a hoard of inbred mathematician/philosopher children running around in 19th Century Quaker-garb torturing visitors– not only with their Theorems on Metaphysics– but also with their straw hair bangs cropped in a ridiculously short fashion leaving these 12 year-olds with a troubling set of excessively prominent foreheads.

    I’ll leave you with a scene where two of the children harangue an unwitting visitor about politics. [Since I’m short for time, I’ll just use your article for the dialogue]

    Child in the dark blue wool/flannel clothing (even though it’s summer time): And underlying it all rests the question of influence and utility of big money in American politics. That is, after all, largely how we got here in the first place, with astroturfed populism combined with huge corporate campaign donations for political tools…

    Only to be immediately contradicted with this gem by Child in black wool/flannel clothing (even though it’s summer time): Over the past two decades, and especially the last eight years, the Republican Party has allowed ideological corruption to rot its once stable, corporate structure from within…

    The poor visitor doesn’t know what he’s gotten himself into, and he foolishly points out the obvious: Do you see the problem here? You are contradicting yourselves…and you don’t even know it.

    Whereupon,the Children of the Mathematician/Philosopher pounce with their pitchforks.

    The End

    • RS says

      Just make your point clearly and cut out all the stuff that is not serious and a waste of time to read. What exactly is the contradiction you point to? The criticism of “huge corporate campaign donations” paired with the favorable mention of the Republican’s “once stable, corporate structure”?

    • Jones says

      Would you like to provide an actual critique or are you content with your ad hominem?

  18. Ruth Walker says

    Hillary is scary and I certainly don’t want endless war, so may support Jill Stein in the Green Party if the Democratic Party doesn’t come to its senses and nominate Bernie.

    http://marjoriecohn.com/want-endless-war-love-the-u-s-empire-well-hillary-clintons-your-choice

    But where does the religious bias of so many atheist authors come from? It hasn’t been that long since Xns engineered the Holocaust, the U.S. (mostly Xn citizens) illegally invaded Iraq (urged by the leader of a nation claiming to be a Jewish one), and this:

    http://marjoriecohn.com/bushs-enemy-du-jour/

    “This morning, Bush said “the status quo in the Middle East” led to the 9/11 deaths. He’s right, but for the wrong reasons. It was not Iraq, Hezbollah, Iran or Syria that perpetrated the September 11 attacks. It was al Qaida. What was Osama bin Laden so upset about? U.S.-U.N. sanctions against the people of Iraq, U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, and U.S.-Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.”

  19. Hillary is scary and I certainly don’t want endless war, so may support Jill Stein in the Green Party if the Democratic Party doesn’t come to its senses and nominate Bernie.

    http://marjoriecohn.com/want-endless-war-love-the-u-s-empire-well-hillary-clintons-your-choice

    But where does the religious bias of so many atheist authors come from? It hasn’t been that long since Xns engineered the Holocaust, the U.S. (mostly Xn citizens) illegally invaded Iraq (urged by the leader of a nation claiming to be a Jewish one), and this:

    http://marjoriecohn.com/bushs-enemy-du-jour/

    “This morning, Bush said “the status quo in the Middle East” led to the 9/11 deaths. He’s right, but for the wrong reasons. It was not Iraq, Hezbollah, Iran or Syria that perpetrated the September 11 attacks. It was al Qaida. What was Osama bin Laden so upset about? U.S.-U.N. sanctions against the people of Iraq, U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, and U.S.-Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.”

  20. stanely21 says

    The article is not controversial in any way, It certainly isn’t being rejected for its anti-Turmp narrative. It is saying the same exact thing that nearly every publication has been saying about him all along, just short of the idea that he is “literally Hitler”. For anyone with a clue about what’s happening on our planet, who’s been smart enough to pull the lens back and take a long look at the truth Trump is obviously the best choice for President at this juncture.

  21. Marion Delgado says

    This is a mediocre op-ed by a neocon/libertarian type – one we’re all familiar with – the Rubin Report contingent. and “banned in boston” is the oldest dodge in the business – look at Kevin Trudeau and his “They don’t want you to know” crap. The equivalent of these people in the Cold War era destroyed civil society after civil society while declaiming the Left was PC blind to the communist menace (so the US financing Islamist terrorists as a useful tool was a perfectly sane prorgram). There’s a difference between so yawn i wouldnt publish it either and “too hot to handle.”

    • What the hell does Rubin Report have to do with this? His audience seems to be mostly libertarians and disaffected liberals.

  22. santoculto says

    Only THE PRESIDENT (a one individual) who govern a nation, no…

    It’s fallacious (don’t mistake with fellastious) to say that ”Trump is not a experient president”, put the Nero’s horse today to govern ‘Merca and will be likely that you no have problem about it because there is a team of ”specialists” behind the solitary, powerfull and symbolic image of the president. President don’t govern alone.

  23. Pingback: Donald Trump And Obi-Wan’s Gambit | Western Free Press

  24. Mike Boxell says

    What an interesting read.
    The way I read (pronounced red) it, it starts off with a blasting of Trump, then the middle goes on to espouse the things that the “Good ole US of A needs” (albeit with a political novice) and then finishes with a “but don’t vote for him, anybody else but not him”.

    Interesting to note that not one (or more) of Trumps opponents were named, OR their positive/negative attributes.

    So I am going to guess that you guys over there have the same problem as down here in Oz. The (paraphrasing here) non-working left (who have the time to demonstrate) are kicking up a stink. whilst the “too-busy-earning-an-income” middle to right stay quiet.

    Damm, how I wish the age of ME ME ME was over and that we all worked for the greater good (whoops, that’s socialism/communism isn’t it) of our country of residence (whether that be USA, Aus, Russia, England, Botswana (you know there is still another 200 hundred to go, right?)) etc..

    I am no Trump fan, nor Clinton Fan, nor Cruz fan, nor Sanders fan. I am just a guy who leans a little to the right. I can see the short comings of the right wing parties and the left wing parties.

    I am an Australian. I see so much happening (politically speaking) that is mirrored over here to your country, it is a huge joke.

    We both (US of A and Aus) have career politicians who are more interested in getting re-elected and being faithful to the party line, rather than looking after their constituents (in a majority of cases, definitely not EVERY case).

    Maybe it is time for a political novice to be your president.Just to bring the major parties back to earth.

    Well, to be quite honest, I don;t really give a shit about your presidential elections (in 5 months). we have our own federal elections in just a few weeks. AND THIS IS SCARY ENOUGH FOR ME.

    i hope you left and right (political thinkers) have read through my entire text, and then taken at least 2 hours to think about what i have written BEFORE you respond with ANY (positive/negative/neutral comments).

    My name is Mike Boxell. I am a resident and natural born citizen of Australia.

    P.S. Remember this, this is only one race. Homo Sapiens. We are all in this together. The lazy should be allowed to fail, the brave should be allowed to be commended, and the successful should be allowed to be rewarded.Peace unto you all

  25. Pingback: Deze opinie werd al door 45 pubicaties geweigerd. | Silvia's Boinnk!!!

  26. Robert Manders says

    Trump maybe the chemotherapy that makes our hair fall out and leaves us insufferably nauseous, but Clinton and the Dems are the cancer we need it for. America is dying by the slow death of quisling left wing agendas which trade rights off and barter moral values for votes. No cancer wants to be surgically removed and the Dems, and BLM are fighting back.

  27. Pritesh says

    I think I need chemo after reading this drivel.

  28. JabbaTheCat says

    Two lunatics from each fringe and the thoroughly corrupt Billary carpetbaggers in the middle does not bode well at home and abroad for the US for the single term of the next POTUS…

  29. KSterling says

    I mostly agree but would add that the authors misrepresent the current stalemate in politics. The fault lies not just with elected representatives in Congress but also with the president, who has made it clear he will not compromise on any issue. When the president has the last word, as it were, via the veto, there isn’t much Congress can do. Republicans have repeatedly tried to fix ObamaCare, but to no avail, since the president gleefully vetoes their efforts every time. And of course the Republicans have hardly cornered the market in partisanship – does anyone remember when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were in power?

    • The republicans have been trying to gut Health Insurance. They have no intention of replacing it. The president will not allow millions of Americans who just got on insurance to get kicked off a few years later. Obama has repeatedly tried to compromise on issue after issue, from taxes to health insurance to supreme court nominees, he’s been stonewalled in an unprecedented fashion by the republicans who promised from day 1 to ruin his presidency.

      Yes, I’m not a fan of Reid or Pelosi either. Lets not re-write history though.

  30. Pingback: The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish via #AusPol – #AusPoll

  31. James Forrestal says

    Wow, you guys sure have a lot of feelz for a philosophy professor and a math PhD. A lot of adjectives, too. This read more like something written by a sociology, or even gender studies, type. Too much of a rant even for the progressive establishment press? That’s saying a lot. Thanks for sharing your emotional incontinence, though; it was entertaining for the first three paragraphs.

    MAGA

  32. dom@domdom.nl says

    It is very normal that nobody wants to publish this very bad written article – as a fact it is no article at all; a child of ten can do better.

  33. giantslor says

    So, the authors’ argument is basically:

    1. Nominate Trump.
    2. Elect Trump.
    3. ????
    4. PROFIT!!!!

    Problem is, we already elected an embarrassing, incompetent, reckless boob named George W. Bush, and his two terms didn’t magically end the extremism in our politics. Instead, the right wing moved even further right into the racist fringes after the nation elected a moderately liberal black president.

    You call Trump every name except one of the most obvious — bigot. He has demonstrated time and time again that he is racist, sexist, and xenophobic. But no — if you applied the obvious label, then you would be like the “politically correct” crowd that you’re so eager to bash. Why do you rail against pointing out bigotry, yet give the growing bigotry in our country a free pass? The First Amendment protects the right of bigots to spew hatred, but it also gives moral people the right to call out those bigots, to make an example of them, to shame them into self-regulating their offensive speech. Bigots have to understand that their disgusting speech will not be given a free pass, and will be met head-on with condemnation. Individuals spewing bigotry can then either see the error of their ways and moderate their speech, or double down on their ignorance. But bigotry cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged.

  34. Pingback: Lindsay and Boghossian take down Trump « Why Evolution Is True

  35. Pingback: Is the Authoritarian Left Responsible for the Rise of Trump? | Heather's Homilies

  36. Pingback: The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish via #AusPol – #AusElection

  37. Dawgzy says

    I don’t follow this- please explain: “But what would happen should Trump get elected? On the Right, President Trump would force the GOP to completely reorganize—and fast. It would compel them to abandon their devastating pitch to the extreme right.”
    Has Trump come out for campaign finance reform as such? His “self funding” consisted of media donations of screen time. He expects the same treatment going into the general election. He’ll have to be more and more outrageous to get the amount of coverage theta he received in the primary. And will he finance his own campaign. Are his pockets really that deep? I don’t see that there’s any there there on this count.
    I agree about PC. I think that your jobs in academia make it appear bigger phenomenon than it is out here in the town. But it’s here. It’s just low hanging fruit for Donald. He has nothing better to offer- his political style will become more and more repulsive, and the PC theme will lose its punch.
    When Reagan was elected I said to a co-worker. “Well at least he might put the US back into the black.” Gee. The universe of unintended consequences here is extremely large. Scarily so.

  38. Michael Houst says

    The American government is dysfunctional, corrupt to the core, bloated, out of control, and glued too tightly together to actually fix it. Those voting for Hillary aren’t capable of see that any more, or are benefiting from that condition and see no reason to change it. Everyone else, Trump supporter or not, does see that. But the Trump supporters have evaluated the situation, and the risks, of taking a sledgehammer to the whole thing, and feel the risks are worthwhile to break it loose to enable the chance for improvement. In short, while Trump may disappoint us all, 4 to 8 years of Hillary are guaranteed to disappoint.

  39. Ronaldus Magnus says

    Hyped Collectivist Rubbish!

    If an half assed community organizer can be President, no doubt a disciplined urban real estate developer with clear understanding of govt. functions will do 100 times better. This is an over analysed pointless clusterfuck.

    In America government is still run by bureaucrats & military by generals. The idea that Trump, a grandfather with 5 grand kids is going to press nuke button is stunningly whacky.

    The question I want to ask is forget about the Phd, where did you get your GED?

  40. Eric says

    I am a fan of Boghossian. I would have preferred he written an article focusing on and providing evidence to back up even one of his disparaging comments about Trump. Yes, Trump has said some things, for example related to Military law that he later decided to back out of… not sure that this proves that he will do the wrong thing when President. In fact his ability to change his mind is quite a refreshing thing for someone running for political office.

  41. I skimmed after the first five or six paragraphs. You said politically correct left too many times to convince me you had some unique take on things. And that unoriginality is why this not be published

  42. Great article. I think Dan Carlin’s phrase “historical arsonist” applies in the scenario you’ve outlined. I like the cancer-chemo metaphor too.

  43. The underlying cause of all these cancers is the perverted Darwinian nature of the state itself, which I elaborate on in this blog: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/civilisation-evolutionary-cul-de-sac.html

    It accounts for why, thus far, all civilisations have been bound to a cycle of boom and bust, which has eventually resulted in their disappearance. Our own civilisation has boomed – is still booming – like none before it, but will soon bust on an unprecedented and catastrophic scale, which many can see coming, but, not recognising the underlying cause, don’t know what can be done about it.

    Why has this not been recognised by the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society the state and civilisation?

    Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, modern academics are privileged clients and employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our “nation”) and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

  44. “the excesses of [the left’s] screeching, reality-denying, uncompromising and authoritarian fringe that provided much of Trump’s thrust in the first place.” Who are the people you are talking about? Give me three or four names, please. Otherwise it is stupid blind both-siderism.

  45. Marissa says

    “the Republican flight from Eisenhower conservatism to the borderline insane far-far-Right bunker”

    Do you mean the Eisenhower who enacted Operation Wetback and kicked a bunch of Mexicans out of the U.S.?

  46. Man, must have been really hard to find someone to publish an anti-Trump article.

    Really hard.

    I mean, you guys are like, totally geniuses.

    (Lights hair on fire)

  47. Have you ever considered the reason that no one will publish your article is because you’re just regurgitating hack garbage that has been blanketing the media for the last year or so? Maybe you should try to sound a little more original if you want people to publish your work.

  48. Pingback: The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish – Rebutted! – Financial Survival Network

  49. Alex On Life says

    You talentless, useless, pieced of shit. You have never created anything of value. Never had a job in your life.
    Get a real job and try to make it in the real world. You are a laughing stock.
    You are painfully aware of your incompetence on every level and you are envious of a Trump, a Man you can never even approach in ability. He reminds you of your own fathers, who rejected you for your lack lack of ability and complete lack of masculinity. I know exactly your type. Academia is full of crap like you. You feel vulnerable in losing your worthless positions, artificially maintained by the Marxist system you exemplify and support.
    Stefan Molyneux put your to shame with his review of juvenile rubish you wrote.
    You worthless losers.

  50. Just bald faced assertions without facts or sources to back any of them up.
    Somewhat shocking in writing style considering the writers.

    “Authoritarian” please give facts and sources for this word. “Authoritarians” I would suspect seldom have relationships with their children.

    My faith in the media is somewhat restored if 45 publications really did reject this article. I doubt this is truth and would like to see proof.

  51. Jason Shults says

    I wonder why even the incredibly left-leaning media, nearly 100% in HRC’s pocket, still won’t publish this…..fine….example….of…..

    Feel free to finish that phrase as you will. It was easy for me to find many adjectives and nouns to complete it satisfactorily.

  52. Not a single argument here. Do the authors know how to make arguments? Clearly not. Leftist hacks (see above article for evidence).

  53. Michael Bud says

    It’s interesting you mention chemotherapy. Trump wants to end the ACA, and replace with useless health savings accounts. Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions will return. Children with cancer will be denied chemotherapy and will die. If you write any more such pieces musing that a Trump presidency might be good for us, please interview any woman who had to have a late term abortion to save her life. Interview a young girl who’s been raped, or is a victim of incest – who’ll be forced to bear their attackers children. Interview the people whose church was burned and “vote Trump” smeared on the husk. Homosexuals will be denied marriage equality, fired from jobs, evicted from homes, dishonorably discharged from the military. The GOP is using Trump to institute their dream of a Christian theocracy and Randian oligarchy. Am I being hysterical? No. I just read the GOP platform. Did you?

  54. rubichka says

    Am I the only one who was sent here by Stefan Molyneux? (:

  55. keep track of your submitted replies….post moderators are deleting dissenting opinions in this forum (in typical Liberal free speech suppression fashion). LIBERALS = ‘if we want your opinion…we will GIVE IT TO YOU.’

  56. Patrik Elias says

    I feel like this link hasn’t been posted here enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMDz2BdEozU&ab_channel=StefanMolyneux.

    Anyone who thinks this article is even somewhat coherent should watch the video ASAP. It is just astonishing to me that this article were written by a person with a Phd and a philosophy professor. IT DOESN’T MAKE A SINGLE POINT OR ARGUMENT, it is just embarrassing…

  57. Pingback: The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish – Rebutted! – Anti-Propaganda News

  58. Steve Maring says

    When a math professor starts insisting that 2+2 = 7, you REALLY have to start questioning their ability to be a math professor. When a philosophy professor cannot manage to make a logical argument … ouch. … best they start working on their burger flipping skills I dare say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMDz2BdEozU

  59. Sha Rocco says

    Stefan Molyneux destroys these two frauds for the sophists they are. Academics, especially tenured academics, are the saddest and most moronic bunch of the whole lot. Pity and pathetic.

  60. Ibukunoluwa Lawal says

    I just have one question, How do you know all this?
    This article amounts to nothing more than what i have seen a lot of theists do, pretending to know something you don’t know. If you want to make a case for something, start with facts and work your way up. When you open with inflammatory non factual sentences, you are left with the work of showing how its true. The rest of the article unfortunately turned out to be just more assertions with no proof.

    I look forward to Peter Boghossian writing an apology or a factual defense of this article in the near future.

  61. I can see why nobody would want to publish this weak series of insults that would serve as more credible if aimed in the opposite direction. I could go down to my local bar and have a better case made by a drunk stranger than this utter garbage.

    Adding this website to leechblock.

  62. Pingback: U.S. Election 2016 – PENSÉES

  63. Pingback: The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish – Rebutted! | Phone Gets Hot

  64. Pingback: The Article About Trump Nobody Will Publish – Rebutted! – Kauai News

  65. Does the Democrats not speaking honestly about the connections between Islam and Islamism, also stem from another cancer within the party? That of the possible connections to CAIR and other subsidiaries of the Muslim Brotherhood?

  66. Pingback: 2016 in Retrospect – Site Title

  67. Pingback: 2016 in Retrospect – transitions

Comments are closed.